Tiger wrote:Good thing you didn't mention their +/- which was the worst in the playoffs for forwards.. Basically they were on the ice form most of the goals scored against the Canucks.. they were on for all 4 in the final playoff game.. That does need elevating..

It's a small sample size so it's tough to use these stats as indicators of their play (of course, using even more infrequent events like goals becomes even less reliable but nevermind that) but the Sedins were far and away leaders among Canucks in Corsi figures indicating they were dominant in terms of possession. They also had an abysmal PDO and while you can argue they are accountable for the team's shooting percentage on the ice there's not much they could have done about the .885 goaltending while they were on the ice.

dhabums wrote:
A life time of playing hockey should teach anyone how to take out your frustrations. That's why you carry a stick.

Last week in rec league I was playing D, my partner got trapped and I chased down the forward who thought he was getting a breakaway. I lifted his stick, he tried to fight the stick lift so I lifted his stick hard and with the hard stick lift basically threw him down to the ice. This happened right at our blueline and his team decided to go for a bad change. The puck was about a stride from me and this guy who is somehow on his stomach sees the 3-on-0 developing if I get the puck. He wraps his legs around my leg and starts twisting my knee. This prick knows that I hurt the knee (torn LCL, continuing patella tendonitis) about a year ago and was out for 6 months (getting fat) so he knows this will hurt. Joke was on him as I realized that instead of trying to force the issue and go for the puck the much better play was to simply fall down and deliver one hell of a crosscheck to his upper back and neck. Remember I'm fat so there is a good amount of force! I got up and got into the play....he writhed on the ice like a little bitch until he realized no penalty was going to be called.

He didn't like it too much. Ref declined to call any penalties which really riled the guy up (the ref was heard to say "you were twisting his leg what did you expect?"). He took 4 penalties on me from that point on trying to get his own back. A couple of big hooks and a high sticking penalty/rough double minor. The last two came when we were along the boards. He had the puck tied up and was fighting for possession with one of our wingers. I came in and started jabbing at his skate to knock the puck loose. He apparently thought this was incredibly dirty or that it was a good time to completely hack at my face (full face shield so i don't know what he meant to accomplish). That was his high sticking penalty. I responded by REALLY poking the puck in his skates and he lost his feet and went down hard. He got up and punched me for his roughing penalty. I laughed at him.

Unfortunately my knee hurts like hell again.

Doesn't have much to do about anything in this thread. Just wanted to tell the story.

Tiger wrote:Good thing you didn't mention their +/- which was the worst in the playoffs for forwards.. Basically they were on the ice form most of the goals scored against the Canucks.. they were on for all 4 in the final playoff game.. That does need elevating..

It's a small sample size so it's tough to use these stats as indicators of their play (of course, using even more infrequent events like goals becomes even less reliable but nevermind that) but the Sedins were far and away leaders among Canucks in Corsi figures indicating they were dominant in terms of possession. They also had an abysmal PDO and while you can argue they are accountable for the team's shooting percentage on the ice there's not much they could have done about the .885 goaltending while they were on the ice.

I've only been able to find scoring chance info from game 1 of the final. But the Sedins even strength scoring chance differential in that 1-0 game was 7-1. But all average/below average fan takes from that game is "the Sedins got shut down in the playoffs/important game".

The truth is, during last year's playoffs, the Sedins played very much like they always did. The underlying stats point to this. In the finals, Tim Thomas got incredibly hot and his save percentage was remarkable. But, depending on certain people's agenda, that did not mean Thomas was great, it meant the Sedins can't do it when it means the most.

The regular season is constructed to prize durable, sustainable talents, to average out streaks and slumps and give the favorable position to the most consistent teams. But then that reward is followed up by a tournament of ridiculously small sample sizes where any little surge of awesomeness, from anyone, no matter what their true talent level, might make the difference between a Cup ring and a golf cart. The game is designed, in the end, to give out its highest prizes based on unsustainable streaks.

Larry Goodenough wrote:
The regular season is constructed to prize durable, sustainable talents, to average out streaks and slumps and give the favorable position to the most consistent teams. But then that reward is followed up by a tournament of ridiculously small sample sizes where any little surge of awesomeness, from anyone, no matter what their true talent level, might make the difference between a Cup ring and a golf cart. The game is designed, in the end, to give out its highest prizes based on unsustainable streaks.

More than Goodenough, excellent post.

I understand fans get frustrated when the production isn't there, and if you're a passionate fan, you live and die with the in-game ups and downs. When jubilation or dejection come into play, many fans tend to have exaggerated responses to success and failure. When things are good, they seem better than they are, and when things are bad, they seem worse than they are.

Personally, I try to separate the emotion from the post-game analytics. I didn't see good enough finish from the Twins against Boston last year, but the process of their game, puck-possesion and chances were there. Ultimately, they didn't get it done, and the usual suspects share some responsibility.

But criticizing an aspect of a player's game and expecting more in certain situations doesn't necessarily mean said player is an abject failure.

Many here think I'm a blowhard, some may even go as far as call me a douche, but I tell it like I see it, and I try to remove the emotion from the evaluation. So when someone says something ridiculous such as "the Canucks can't go deep with the Sedins leading the way"...or "they've been figured out and neutered" I can't help but laugh and shake my head.

I try to play nice. It is rec league after all. Sometimes I can lost it but I typically wait for the somebody to do something to me before getting all crazy eyed that way I don't get put the team down a man.

Larry Goodenough wrote:The regular season is constructed to prize durable, sustainable talents, to average out streaks and slumps and give the favorable position to the most consistent teams. But then that reward is followed up by a tournament of ridiculously small sample sizes where any little surge of awesomeness, from anyone, no matter what their true talent level, might make the difference between a Cup ring and a golf cart. The game is designed, in the end, to give out its highest prizes based on unsustainable streaks.

The business of pro sports is essentially the business of selling drama: thus the bolded part above is at the heart of what a Final should produce for fans (at least from the marketing angle): everyone loves the notion of heroes that lead their teams to success - unfortunately for us, that hero was on the other team last year.

And while I agree with your analysis Larry, in the micro-cosm that is an NHL playoff round, the seven game series is also designed to take some of the streakiness out of it. But first we need to define "streaks"

Let's look at Tim Thomas as an example. What he accomplished last year was not only freakish in a visceral sense, it was also that in a statistical sense. In a "normal" performance one would expect Thomas to have significantly lower stats; really one could, based on his performances leading up to the Final, also expect at least one shaky (ie. no-contest) game in a seven game series. In other words, if we played that series again, the law of averages would favour TT having at least one or more loss by at least 2+ goals.

That didn't happen - Thomas played waaaaaaaay over his head (statistically) for seven straight games - kudos to him, our guy managed the exact opposite.That's the proverbial "unsustainable streak" mentioned above.

But is it? There are "unsustainable streaks", and then there are "once-in-a-lifetime freak-show never-to-be-seen-again superhero performances", and that's more like what TT produced.

So, while I agree with the sentiment of your post, I just wanted to aply it to what happened to us in the Final last season. I still do adhere somewhat to the idea that two skilled and fairly evenly-matched teams will play a series that does tend to even some of those more common type streaks out.